the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i think, as has been said here numerous times by people on both sides of the aisle, we regret that we're having to bring a continuing resolution to the floor to continue the government over the end of the iscal year. but that is caused because we attempted on the house side, on both sides of the aisle, to pass all 12 of these individual appropriations bills. and we were on our way to passing all of them until the senate decide they weren't going to take any of them up, and they haven't. so it left us no choice but to ask for a continuing resolution to keep the government lights on until december 11, by which, hopefully, we'll be able to put together, cobble together an omnibus appropriations bill for all of the government, for all

of next year. so that's where we are. we really have no choice. i don't think either side wants to shut down the government. certainly on this side, we do not. so the necessity is that we pass this bill. now the amendment coming up on giving the president the authority to establish training bases and equip fighters in syria is all important. an amendment that i certainly support. and welcome into the appropriations bill. so mr. speaker, i want to thank my colleague, ms. lowey, for her hard work on these bills all year long, and all of the staff and all the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle. we are a committee that jab hors continuing resolutions, yet we're faced with no choice but to try to pass one system of i urge my colleagues to support the continuing resolution and i

yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman yields back his time. all time for debate on the joint resolution has expired.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an -- mr. mckeon: i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment printed in part b of house report 113-600, offered by mr. mckeon of california. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 722, the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, and the

gentleman from washington, mr. smith, each will control three hours. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to offer an amendment to house resolution 124, to provide authority to train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the syrian opposition in order to defend the syrian people from attacks by isil and to protect the united states and our friends and allies. isil is a clear and present threat to our allies across the northeast and to the united states. -- across the middle east and to the united states. the president has asked for this authority because none of the existing department of defense trained and equipped programs fit the circumstance. specifically, the president had -- has requested the ability to train and equip nongovernmental entities fighting in non-u.s. lead operations in syria. there's no doubt that any strategy to defeat isil must contain a syria component.

i believe that there are options to defeat isil in syria short of a major u.s.-led combat operation. the window of opportunity is closing. that's why i'm supporting the president's request and agreed draft an amendment to the continuing resolution based on a modified version of the administration' initial proposal. my amendment would allow the secretary of defense to provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies and the sustainment of the vetted opposition. the provision is intended to authorize activities necessary to facilitate such training and equiping activities, including the appropriate modification of existing facilities and establishment of expeditionary facility suitable for such training and accommodation as well as payment of stipends to trainees. the president's request did not specify the amount of funding

that would be required for this effort, and contained few oversight requirements. therefore, my amendment would strengthen congressional oversight by requiring detailed reports. including progress reports on the plan, the vetting process, and the procedures for monitoring the end use of the training and equipment. it would also require the president to report on how this authority fits within a larger regional strategy. this amendment does in the -- does not authorize additional funds. however, it would allow the department of defense to submit reprogramming requests to congress, should the president require funds to execute this authority. it also permits the sec retear of defense to accept foreign contributions. lastly the amendment would state that nothing in this bill be construed to constitute a specific statutory authorization

for the introduction of united states armed forces into hostilities. there may be a time when we need to have an aumf debate but this is not it. the president has not asked for such an authority. my amendment is narrowly focused on training and equiping syrian opposition fighters to counter isil. this language was drafted in collaboration with the chairs of the national security committees and shared with the minority. additionally, the language for this authority has been reviewed by the department of defense and the national security council. lastly, let me emphasize that this trained and -- this train and equip authority is a necessary part, but only one part, of what should be a larger strategy. it must be part of a larger effort in syria, in iraq, and across the region. let's also remember that it will be our men and women in uniform who will be conducting this training. we continue to ask more and more

of our military, yet their funding continues to be cut. this is not sustainable, and must be addressed. again, isil is a clear and present threat to the united states and our interests. my amendment is a necessary step to support what should be a larger strategy by the president to defeat isil. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i, too, rise in support of this amendment. --re's no question that isil i too rise in support of this amendment, i think that without question, as the chairman laid out, isil is a clear threat to our interests. they're a threat in two clear ways. number one, a large number of foreign fighters are going over to syria and iraq to support

them. some of those foreign fighters, estimates are sw somewhere in the 100 range have come from the u.s. and thousands are have come from western europe. many of those have returned to that home country and they present a clear threat. as long as isis and isil are there, isis or isil is there to threaten us, the fighters that fight with them will become a threat to the rest of us. but in a broader sense if isil is able to control territory in iraq and in syria and have a safe and secure haven, they will without question plot and plan attacks. they've already said that's their plan. this is exactly what happened when al qaeda had safe haven in afghanistan. denying isil safe haven is clearly in the united states' self-interest. i think the humanitarian aspect of this is also worth stating. as was noted by earlier speakers on the c.r. debate, you cannot imagine a more violent and dangerous and just he donistic group of people. the number of folks they have murdered in iraq and syria, brutally and solely because they

refuse to pledge allegiance to isis in their twist -- and their twisted view of their religion, this is a group that must be stop the sad fact is, the united states military cannot stop them on our own. this has to be primarily a local fight. the folks in the region have to take up this battle. and i believe they have started to in iraq, but we need to open a front in siria. because the problem is, if isis can hold themselves out as an organization fighting against western imperialism that brings supporters to them. if on the other hand, they are, as they clearly are, a group of murderous thugs who are kill manager muslims than anybody has killed in a very long time, we can build support from the local population, from the sue noah population, to oppose them. we have already seen some success in this in iraq and i think the president was absolutely right to take his time in iraq and wait for a coalition to work with. if the u.s. had come in over the top, right off the bat, and

started bombing isis, we would have been perceived as choosing the shia side in the shia-sunni civil war and would have strengthened isis. by insisting that prime minister maliki be replaced and that iraq start some sort of power sharing with the sunnis, we were able to build some sort of coalition. we could be in support of them fighting isis and push them out. the great flaw in this theory is the border between iraq and syria is nonexistent, as far as isis is concerned. they can go back and forth across it. if we don't have any way to get at them in syria, it gives them an enormous advantage in syria. we face the same dilemma in syria as in iraq. the dominant issue that started everything syria was opposition to the assad regime a regime very much worth opposing. as the president and many on the floor have said, assad must go.

he is an illegitimate leader. if we were to come in and appear to be playing the role of assad's air force in syria, that would drive sunnis and the anti-regime elements from syria into their arms. we need a partner in syria we can support that is an alternative to assad and an alternative to isis. right now, we don't have one. we have a small group of people that we've been supporting in a variety of different ways, but we need that group to grow. we need to have a partner to support if we are ever going to hope to contain isis in syria and iraq. and the only way to do that is to start. i've heard a number of complaints, people say, are there really any moderates out there, are there enough to make a difference, what if they switch sides? there are all kinds of problems but the bottom line is, if you believe we have to open a front in syria to stop isis, and i don't see how you can believe otherwise, to give them syria and say we're not going to challenge you there i think makes it impossible to even

significantly degrade them and certainly tover defeat them. we need to open a front. how do you do that? you can't open a front unless you start the process and that's what mr. mckeon's amendment does, is starts the process. it gives the ability to train and equip a force that will be opposed to assad and opposed to isis. i know americans -- i would prefer this as well -- we would say, look, we'll win this war and win it in 100 days. this is going to be a long process. this is not something that's going to happen quickly. it's simply the nature of the conflict in that part of the world that will take time to find people, train them and equip them. if we do not try then isis will sit in syria unchallenged, continuing to brutally murder civilians of all stripes and continuing to spread their unique ideology of hatred and violence. we have to start somewhere. i think this amendment gives us the opportunity to start somewhere. i also want to note that i like the fact that the amendment is

only effective until the end of the c.r. and says that this should be contained in the national defense authorizing act. this is an authorizing action. it should be done in an authorization bill. the senate has not acted so we don't have the ndaa yet. but we will in the next month or two, and i think we can then put this language into the ndaa and make it more long term in terms of the authorization. so i appreciate that. and i also feel, as the chairman does, that congress should do a broader aumf on the fight against isis, on what we're doing in iraq and syria. we launched, i think, well in the hundreds of bombing missions against isis. this is something where congress should act. the only area of disagreement i have, the president ought to ask for it. we are the legislative branch. i hear all the time, the president is overstepping his authorities, is he ignoring the law? why does he have to act? if this is what we want to do,

we're the united states congress, the legislative ought to act. i think the president is right in saying he'll do what he believes he has the right to do under article 2 to protect this country but congress should act. we shouldn't wait for him to ask. we should put together an aumf to broadly authorize this. but in the short term, we need to start a front against isis in syria, and the only way to do that is to build a legitimate local force that can begin that fight. train and equip is the first step, i believe, in this process that regrettably will not be quick. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the appropriations committee -- committee on appropriations, distinguished gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i thank and congratulate the chairman and mr. smith for their work on this issue. and i rise in support of this

amendment. it's become urgent, mr. speaker, that we make serious strides against isil. and we must act quickly to curb their influence and to fight back against terrorism of the most brutal sort. chairman mckeon's amendment, which provides the authority to train and equip syrian rebels to fight isil is the right approach. i support its inclusion on the frution. over the past week -- on the continuing resolution. over the past week, the house has done due diligence to ensure this amendment language is appropriate, supporting limited yet adequate efforts to degrade and destroy isil. while providing our commander in chief with the tools he has requested for the near term, language is also included to prevent an open-ended blank check for these efforts. this will help ensure that

congress maintains funding authority and oversight over taxpayer dollars and the use of our military forces. and so, mr. speaker, i want to associate myself with the remarks of mr. smith who just spoke, who gave a very eloquent and full explanation of where we are. i support his statement. so i encourage my colleagues to support this critical amendment and then the underlying resolution today or tomorrow. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i thank you, mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. moran: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from washington state, and i want to associate myself with his remarks as well as the remarks of the chairman of our armed services committee and the chairman of our appropriations committee. all three leaders have played a

consequential role over the last many years in establishing united states military as the largest, most capable, best funded military in the world. in fact, larger than all the other militaries combined. so it's no wonder that the rest of the world turns to us for leadership. but that's not the major reason they turn to us for leadership. they turn to us because they understand our profound belief and respect for human rights and democratic governance and inclusive society. now, isis violates everything we believe in. they're opposed to respect for human rights. they're opposed to democratic governance and certainly to an inclusive society. at's not the reason why we support this amendment, because there are other people like that, but in the judgment of our military, isis is expanding

at a rate that cannot be ignored, that has to be stopped. isis is expanding in numbers exponentially. they were $2 trillion. they are the best funded, most lethal terrorist organization that we've ever seen in modern history. so we cannot turn our backs on this. and we know that we have substantial assets and particularly personnel in baghdad. they will be targeting baghdad as soon as they're capable of it. we have to protect the capital of iraq. we need to contribute to stability in that region because it's not going to stay static. it's only going to get worse or get better, and so the proposal before us is not to put american boots on the ground but to use american intelligence, to use american trainers, to use american equipment and to prepare

syrians, particularly, to do the job that needs to be done in their region of the world. they know the geography. they know the language. they understand the cultures, and we are going to prepare them to be the best equipped and best trained to carry out a mission that they must share with us. isis, if it is not confronted, it will grow, it will become a greater threat. that's what we hear from our military. that seems to me, mr. speaker, that our military has earned respect for their judgment. they know what -- how to provide the kind of security that so many americans are able to take for granted. if they say this is the right thing to do at this point in time seems to me that congress needs to show support for them. so i stand in support of the mckeon amendment. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of

the committee on foreign affairs, the gentleman from california, mr. royce. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of this amendment. today we face, as we know, a great and growing threat from isil. never has a terrorist organization controlled so much territory, a safe haven, as well, to plan future attacks. never has one had access to vital natural resources. never has a terrorist organization possessed the cash, the heavy weaponry, the personnel that isil possesses. and we're late in responding. at least two years ago the president had a proposal on his desk to arm those under threat inside syria. it was backed by his secretary of state, backed by his defense secretary, backed by general petraeus, then head of the c.i.a.

if the president had accepted this recommendation coming from his entire national security team years ago, we might be in a different position right now. but we are where we are, and the question is -- syria continues to spiral out of control, assad has hung to power and isil has risen from a terrorist group to a terrorist army, that's where we are. and caught in the middle has been the civil society types, those who are trying to defend themselves from the barrel bombs coming down from above from assad while at the same time trying to defend themselves from isil attacks on the ground. they've been left to fend on their own, and these are the individuals. i'll remind you for those that remember the tapes, who remember the programming at the time chanting "peaceful, peaceful," as they were protesting the assad regime, assad soldiers opened up with

automatic weapons fire on them in the streets of damascus. after assad began this slaughter they took up arms to defend themselves. the question is, will we give them the wherewithal to fight back against the isil attacks that are right now on the borders of alepo? in july, the foreign affairs committee heard testimony from syrian army defector named caesar. he showed our committee pictures of the atrocities. tens of thousands of people tortured. men, women and children by assad. assad has killed over 200,000 people now. nd the fact is that assad is a protector of no one except himself. that's the bottom line. and where isil operates, they've gone on a horrifying reclaiming my time page, killing, beheading. some of you heard about the crucifixions there. so in the meantime, assad is no fool. his regime has pursued a

strategy to avoid confrontation with isil, focusing his efforts on wiping out these rebels in alepo that we're talking about supporting, who are fighting isil. indeed, the assad regime continues to purchase crude oil from isil, giving them ready cash, an average of $2 million daily for that terrorist group. his strategy is to present the world with a choice between the regime and the isil extremists. friends, we do not have to play his game. what we can do, what this amendment would do is give the syrian opposition what they desperately need, training and equipment. we're looking to aid these individuals who have risked their lives to combat the assad regime and to combat the isil terrorists that they're fighting today. but these fighters aren't starting from scratch. they've been in the fight for several years. out of sheer commitment and

determination, they've hung on, but with greater u.s. training and supplies they will be bolstered. as an ultimate boost, this force would be supported by u.s. and coalition airpower and that puts real spying into a fighting supports which will be needed to confront and defeat isil. our military has provided this type of training around the world for decades. let's do it here. let's go on offense against isil. i ask for the support for this amendment. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. isil poses a threat of extraordinary significance to the united states in its size, its wealth and barbarity, it is in fact a threat to civil society. we fight the ongoing isil and

that is the training and equipping of the opposition in approximate syria. -- opposition in syria. it pales in comparison to the larger question facing congress and the nation and that is, should we authorize the president to use our armed forces in syria and iraq? unfortunately, it appears we will not be considering that larger consider before we leave town in advance of the election. this, i believe, is a mistake of constitutional dimension. the administration has acknowledged that the military campaign we're about to embark upon amounts to war and will likely last years. if congress' power to declare war means anything, it must us compel us to act under circumstances such as these. if we sit on our hands, we set a precedent for future administrations that they may wage war without congress approval and the declaration clause is no more than excess verbiage in our constitution from a bygone era.

the president has broad authority to defend the united states. as one formal constitutional law professor and then-senator barack obama said in 2007, the president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. the administration has acknowledged that isil does not yet pose an imminent threat. nonetheless, it has asserted it has the authority to act based on the 2001 authorization to use military force against al qaeda. passing the days immediately following september 11. this reason -- this reasoning is tenous at best. that authorization addressed to a different enemy at a different time at a different place does not provide the legal foundation for a war on isil, an organization that tself is at war with al qaeda.

today i've introduced a tailored resolution that does not deploy ground troops. it includes an 18-month sunset clause so congress can insist on its oversight rule. it also immediately repeals the rule to use no, sir iraq and provides the same 18-month sunset for the 2001 authorization to use force, to harr monoize the legal authority we provide to wage war against any foe and to ensure that no future president can claim to use it as a basis for unilateral action. matters of war, congress is not some suitor that needs to be asked by the president to dance. requested or not, congress must exercise its responsibility to decide whether to send the nation's sons and daughters to war. we should not go to war, let

alone adjourn, without a vote. i thank the gentleman and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. speaker. to respond to my good friend from california, we have adjoining districts and we agree on many things, we disagree on a few things. i would like to say i agree with you. this is something the congress should address. for 20 years, i've been here 22 years, whenever a president has asked for this, we've addressed it. we have not addressed it without having the request from the president. this is something we had quite a debate a few weeks ago about what previous presidents have done or not done and what shorts they have or don't have. and some of it has not been decide by the supreme court. the president says he has the

authority he says he needs this additional authority to help in syria. that's the question we're addressing here today. i think that we're bound to have this discussion. i know the speaker wants to have it. mr. smith said he wants to have it. i want to have it. i think one thing we should really probably consider in all of this, this is not going to be a one-month or two-month, probably eavep one-year or two-year commitment that we're making here. isil is very serious about this and we're going to be in this fight, as we've seen in the past, for a long time. and it is a new commitment. so i'm thinking that as close as we are to the election, there's going to be a lot of new members here that are going to be living with this discussion, debate this vote potentially for a long time. i think those are the people that probably should make that

decision in january or as close as they feel comfortable to having that debate. mr. speaker, at this time, i yield four minutes to my friend and colleague, the chame of the defense appropriations subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of the mckeon amendment but with serious reservations, reservations that have nothing to do with the substance of the amendment. i applaud chairman mckeon for his diligent work to craft an amendment in response to our commander in chief's proposal to address the very real, serious threat we face in a thoughtful and responsible manner while preserving congress' constitutional authority and oversight in these matters. let me be clear, the islamic state of iraq and sir -- in syria poses a serious throat the united states, our homeland and

friends and partners in the middle east and around the world. the president has proposed he be granted authority to train and equip syrian opposition groups and hope they'll use their training and turn their weapons on isis, a truly savage and cruel cult of extremists. we all watched the president's television address last week. that address left this member and many constituents with more questions than answers. the strategy the president announced is not so much a strategy as a continuation of a counterterrorism policy that relies on others to be on the front line to protect united states national security interests when their motivations, interests, and capabilities may or may not align with our interests. i have to state here and now that i'm concerned that the president's plan is first of all very late. secondly, may be based on unrealistic assumptions. we have been told that there's a comprehensive strategy and a

multinational coalition of the willing -- that are willing to fight the terrorists who have gained massive amounts of ground in both syria and iraq. today -- to date, neither the congress nor the american people have been told all the details on that strategy or how it will be implemented. the president repeatedly claimed there will be no american boots on the ground but our constituents should not be misled. there are american boots on the ground currently in iraq and there's a strong likelihood there may be boots on the ground in syria and in the skies above, planes and those who fight will remain in harm's way. the white house is relying on so-called moderate rebel groups to fight isis, groups that do not and will not exist in any great numbers, whose primary target is the syrian dictator, president assad. how do you reconcile those competing goals? indeed, there are many complicated questions, it's a

complicated region of the world with ever-shifting allianceness and loyalties. but this is where the terrorists who want to do us harm have taken hold. despite reservations and questions, we must take action. the threat is real and isis must be con fronted now. i support the mckeon amendment because it will provide the experts in the department of defense the authority they need to put together a clearly defined and realistic strategy and address unanswered questions for both this congress and our constituents. that, however, does not, and must not mean that congress will cede its constitutional obligations. we must exercise our responsibilities and not give the president a blank fiscal check. i commend chairman mckeon for recognizing that congress must be informed and a full partner with the administration. this amendment does not provide the administration with a blank check they originally sought. in this measure, we provide

authority for a limited train and equip program with strong congressional oversight this does not allow any funds, appropriated funds or foreign partner funds, without prior approval in accordance with standard reprogramming procedures. this amendment does not, i repeat, does not provide an authorization for the use of military force. indeed the amendment includes language that makes it explicitly clear that this train and equip authority is not an authorization for the use of military force. i ask the chairman for an additional 30 seconds. mr. mckeon: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. frelinghuysen: i support this amendment. isis needs to be confronted and sooner rather than later. however, in the weeks and months to come this house must use its oversight powers under the constitution to monitor the

strategy and demand changes when and if it faulters. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. i listened with considerable interest in the exposition just given by our colleague and i find myself in agreement with much of what was said, particularly the concerns. the unknowns. and the fact that this amendment is going to wind up in a c.r. and we're going to be voting on the c.r. and the amendment whether we like the amendment or not or we shut down government that causes me great concern. my real concern is beyond just this amendment. limited as it is, and i thank the chairman for making this as limited and sometime in december, i think december 11,

that's good. the fact that the reporting is there, that's good. the fact that we are going to find ourselves right smack in the middle of a civil war that's gone on for three years and the previous three we couldn't figure out which side we wanted to be on and who we wanted to work with, aparently we now know who we want to work with, or we'll find out who we want to work with. a lot of unknowns here. a lot of concerns. the big concern is this. that is that the administration presently does not intend to have the congress of the united states carry out its constitutional responsibility to declare war or not. they have figured out a way to avoid having the congress deal with the most fundamental of issues. they claim that the 2001-2002 authorization to use force in afghanistan and in iraq is sufficient to carry on what may be an unending war in iraq and quite possibly in syria. the war powers act has been

pushed aside, we don't need to worry about that, says the administration. we don't have to vote because they have these other two authorizations to use force still in effect. this is not right. s that new war. a continuation of the problem that's existed in this area for more than 1,400 years. so now it's in far dime, we're going to be in for many, many dollars and many, many people. my plea to the congress my plea to all my colleagues, is, this is not the step. this is but one small little movement toward a much larger and will we have the courage to carry out our constitutional responsibility and take up the larger issue of what to do with air strikes and beyond. for me, we ought to be voting on that larger issue and i i believe the administration is dead wrong in sing they don't need to come back to congress

for a larger issue of an authorization to use force. with that, i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the chair would remind all members to direct their comments to the chair and with that, the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i yield three minutes to my friend and colleague, the vice chair of the committee on armed services, the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. thornberry: i rise in support of the chairman's amendment. i am very much in sympathy with the comments that have been expressed here on the floor that we should have a larger debate about the authorization for the use of military force. that is not, however, what is before us with the chairman's amendment. and i understand some people would like for it to be. but what we have before us here is a specific request that the

president has made for train and equip authority for certain syrians to help provide ground forces against isil. and i think it's important to remember that the united states has been involved in training and equiping security forces in over 40 countries. we haven't got intoon a war in all of those this is something we know thousand do and we do it competently all around the world. but i completely agree with those who say this is a very complex, volatile situation. and there are considerable doubts about whether the president's approach is going to be successful. and there are especially doubts about whether his policy will be carried out with a seriousness of purpose and a perseverance that is required against such a formidable opponent. and i confess, i share those doubts. but, at the same time, two facts seem clear to me.

one is that isil is a significant threat. it's not the junior varsity. it's the best equipped, best trained, best financed terrorist organization and has several thousand people with western passports that are a part of it. secondly, that a threat like this will not be eliminated from the air. and so what that means is, you're going to have to have some sort of forces from the ground. some of them need to be the kurds. some of them need to be iraqis. but you have to have some sort of competent ground force in syria as well or else it becomes a safe haven. and so that's where this train and equip authority to help develop that competent ground force inside -- from syria is important. but it is only, and i think everybody acknowledges this, it is only one small part of what needs to be a much broader strategy. mr. speaker, despite all the

doubts and concerns, having a competent ground force inside syria with whom we can talk, with whom we can work, whatever the course of events there, has got to be a useful thing. but for the moment, between now and december 11 or so, giving the president this authority that he's asked for so he can take advantage of some offers from other countries, so he can begin the preparation nrs training, seems to me to make sense. we give him this authority with all the checks and oversights that have been described and are very important. we give him this authority and it's up to the president to make it work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rangel: let me thank you so

much for giving me this opportunity to address this. i think today and tomorrow may be recorded in history as one of the most serious decisions that this congress has had to make. personally, i don't know enough to see where the president needs authority to do what we e about to allow him to do because of the threat to these united states of america. i have talked with everyone that's willing to listen to me in my congressional district, and they have given me a whole lot of things that they're concerned about. but i haven't come close, as much as they love this president of the united states, in convincing them that

training people overseas that we don't know to fight isis is in their best national interest. the point that i ask to come to the floor is that it's so easy to try to bring justice to a doesn't cause you anything or any nconvenience -- cost you anything or any inconvenience. already we lost over 6,000 lives in this area and i don't think we have yet to declare war. hat i'm suggesting, drafting legislation, if it does reach time that this honorable body is prepared to discuss all of the issues and determine whoo any enemy is a threat -- whether or not any enemy is a

threat to the united states and we are going to go to war with them, that we should attach it at two provisions that would force every american to evaluate whether or not they believe they're prepared to make sacrifice. one of them, of course, is a war tax. these last wars, the only people that have suffered were those people that had boots on the ground or those people that know people or those people that went to the funerals. certainly those that have gained profit because we need it, their service is overseas, they haven't made any sacrifices. when it comes down to discretionary spending, what i consider a threat to the united states of america is our failure to provide money for research, for development, for

education, for jobs, for infrastructure. but if we attach the two things to any bill where we're prepared to debate or determine whether our great nation is being threatened, then i don't think it's asking too much of americans to be able to say, yes, and we're willing to pay taxes for it and, yes, we're ready to have mandatory recruitment of young men and women who are prepared to say if our nation's in trouble we all should be doing something. but all these people that are willing to fight for other people's kids i think it's not the standard this august body should have. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the armed services subcommittee on readiness, the distinguished gentleman from

virginia, mr. wittman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, i rise in support of today's amendment, to authorize the training and equipping of elements of the syrian opposition to combat the islamic state of iraq and syria, better known as isis. i've been to the border of turkey and syria and met with refugees which now total more than two million people and i've seen the ramifications of standing on the sidelines of this conflict. such as increased risk to our national security and interest, regional instability and immense human suffering. isis poses a serious and grave threat to the united states, and it must be destroyed. this action alone will not topple isis, but it is a foundational element of any broad effort to root out this barbaric terrorist army and prevent its followers from

taking further hold in the middle east in one day as they have threatened to do, bring their brutality here to our homeland. ongoing efforts by the brave men and women of our u.s. military in coordination with regional partners have blunted isis' territorial gains in iraq and have granted some reprieve to persecuted christians and other ethnic minorities. but fully destroying isis will require striking at its center of gravity, which includes eliminating safe havens and bases of operation in syria. supporting those in syria who are also committed to this fight is a necessary step. i believe today's amendment does establish strict parameters and rigorous oversight to ensure that training and equipping syrian opposition forces does not aid the assad regime or undermine the mission to destroy isis. recent events have reminded us

ll that barbarity, evil, uncertainty still exists in the world. isis is the latest front to the civilization's struggle against radical extremists and now is the time to act. i want to make sure, too, that we bring to bear the weight and might of our strong nation in cooperation with our partners to destroy isis and the threat it poses, understanding that we must continue to request and receive more specifics on how these efforts will be prosecuted. this resolution, i must remind folks, does not authorize the use of military force, only the training and equipping of these forces. it is the first step of many steps in which congress must be involved in addressing this threat. that is our constitutional responsibility. today's effort is that first step, but we must not forget that we have to continue to remain involved as a congress in the future efforts this nation takes against this

extremist threat and others around the world. mr. speaker, with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i thank you, mr. speaker. i don't have any speakers right now. so i want to address one issue. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: on the subject of boots on the ground, it came up. i think this is really an important point for why this debate has been so divisive. so many people concerned about this action. i think what we want to do is we want to confront the threat that is isis that has been well described. the violence this group has perpetrated on people in their region and foreigners is unimaginable. and make no mistake about it, if they're allowed to spread that violence, but there is concern about the u.s. again getting engaged in that part of the world because of iraq and afghanistan. a number of my colleagues raised the issue, gosh, we put 150,000 troops in iraq, we left

and two years later it had fallen apart. we're in afghanistan. there's still a raging violence, war going on there. here we go again, basically. have we not learned our lessons? and i believe the boots on the ground comment shows in an odd way that we have learned our lesson. we are not going to do a full-scale military commitment to iraq. now, i think a lot of people are against isis. i think a lot of people mistake that we're not going to do that not so much because it wouldn't work because we just don't want to do that. we don't want to spend the money and risk the lives. that's really not the case. the reason we're not going to do a full-scale u.s. military commitment is because the lesson we learned in the last 12 years is the limitations of the ability of the u.s. military to bend cultures in this part of the world to their will. it doesn't work. that's why we're not going to send in the u.s. military, because then you set up a situation where you have a fight between in the minds of

the people in that part of the world, the evil west and islam. if you set up that dynamic, we cannot win. now, that means that we can't do the full-scale military commitment, but we can do is we can enable partners. i know there's considerable concern about the fact that we spent a lot of money, supposedly, enabling partners in iraq. when isis came rolling across the border of syria, they simply melted away. now, two things. number one, i would submit to you they melted away because of what the maliki government had done to alienate the entire sunni population. it wasn't they couldn't fight. it's they chose not to because they did not want to fight on behalf of what was essentially a sectarian, corrupt shiia government. the sunnis would not fight on behalf of them. i point out we have successfully trained militaries around the world. you look at the horn of africa and the threat we faced in somalia. we trained ethiopia and kenya

and uganda. across the red sea in yemen, we've trained them as they confront al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, not clearly as effective as we had in the horn of africa but nonetheless they contained the threat. on a much smaller scale i was in the philippines back where we tried to contain various threats down there. it has been effective. just because it wasn't effective in iraq doesn't mean it can't be effective to train an indigenous force to effectively fight the fight we want them to fight. but it can't just be the u.s. military. now the final point on the boots on the ground issue that i think is misleading, we're all searching for that clear-cut way to say, we'll do this but won't do that. we don't go that far to make us a big military engagement. there is no way to define that. there's no way to say, ok, if we step across this line, then there's no going back. in fact, i heard the concern raised, wear sending in

advisors and, gosh, we send in advisors and next thing you know you have 5,000 troops and 70,000 soldiers dead. that's what happened in vietnam. it doesn't have to be that way. the boots on the ground issue i think is relatively simple and straightforward. we are in some instances going to -- we already had boots on the ground but we are not going to make this a u.s. military-led fight because it cannot be. it would not be successful if it was. this is going to be an effort to train and equip and advise, to build a force that can confront isis. because right now in syria, it's the choice between assad and isis for too many people. don't read into the fact that some people are joining isis, the belief they're absolutely aligned with them. they oppose assad. isis is in many cases the only game in town. we need to give them another option. a sunni-led indigenous force

that we train and equip to help begin the process of getting to the point where they can be a legitimate force. it will not be a short process. it just won't. it will take time. isis needs to be confronted. this is the first necessary step in doing it. we can't do that without local partners taking the lead. this is the first step. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i'll speak from the well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, there are many who support this amendment. there are many who feel like it's not enough. i'd like to just relate a couple of instances. i just returned from the middle east. i met with leaders of israel, jordan, egypt, morocco, and one

of the things that i think needs to be addressed and the people -- the people need to understand this who isil is. in about 600 a.d., people moved, arab people moved into the area that they called levant. they controlled that area, took them about 50 years to concur it and they controlled it -- conquer it and they controlled it from 650 a.d. to about 1,500 a.d. when they were defeated by the ott mon empire. that -- ottoman empire. that area comprised what we now know as part of egypt, israel, lebanon, jordan, iraq, iran. it was a huge area. and isil wants to go back to that same area. they want to control that same

area. they want to set up a caliphate that they can then export terrorism around the world, and they're going to be brutal about it. they have great designs. they are willing to do anything it takes to win that. i don't know why we -- the president, it seems like when he talks, the first thing he says is no boots on the ground. as was just mentioned by the ranking member, there are boots on the ground. we have over 1,000 forces right now in iraq. iraq, as he explained, their army kind of wilted for the reasons that he gave, but i talked to general petraeus the other day and he said their army will fight, but there are certain things they need that only we can provide and that's what we can provide without entering into the combat, ithout putting in what i guess

the reference to boots on the ground is a certain number. i don't know what that number is but we're not going to do that. that's not what we're talking about, but saying we're not going to have boots on the ound, it's kind of not being totally truthful with the american people. there are boots and will continue to be boots on the ground. they will provide training. they will provide leadership. they will provide i.s.r. they will provide the intelligence, the things that are necessary for the iraqis to be successful in pushing isil out of the ground that they have conquered and they have taken, they will be able to take it back. what we're talking about is the ability to go in and train syrian forces so they will be able to take back territory that they've lost in syria, and by doing so, that will deprive isil of having a safe haven so

as they're pushed out of iraq, they won't be able to go into yria. we need to envelop them and their mission right there, don't let them get into lebanon and jordan and these other countries around, don't let them squeeze out into those countries. we need to stop them now. the leaders in that area told me how big this threat was. they said, don't think the oceans are going to protect you now. they will not. and we all know that one of the big threats over there is foreign fighters entering into those -- into this fight and a lot of them have passports and will be able to enter back into europe or come to this country and do a lot of serious things we don't want to see happen. we would rather fight them there than here. and that's the purpose of this amendment and the thing that we're talking about right now. so isil is a dangerous threat right now and we need to address them right now.

they're growing very rapidly. very well funded. well led. they're fighting as an army, not a little terrorist, ragtag group. we need to address them that way. with that, i would yield at this time to my good friend from arizona, a member of the armed services committee, two minutes, mr. franks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. franks: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of his amendment. mr. speaker, last january, isis retook fallujah. eight months later, president barack obama told americans, quote, we don't have a strategy yet, unquote. it was seven years ago, mr. speaker, that george bush warned that, quote, to begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would mean surrendering the future of iraq, unquote. mr. speaker, he could not have

been more right. if you delete all the things mr. obama so very unwisely said, he would not do, most of what remains of his plan is in keeping with the bush doctrine. mr. speaker, i sincerely believe president obama owes george bush and apology along with the men and women who freed iraq and watched their blood-bought gains evaporate while this administration stood by as women and children were beheaded, crucified, raped and sold into slavery. we must make no mistake about it, mr. speaker. it was the vacillation and the tepid and inept leadership of president barack obama that brought us where we are today. and now, even though this administration is still inexplicably unwilling to admit it, we do indeed face a jihaddist enemy that's more dangerous than ever and it's now more vital than ever that this congress, the president of the united states and the american people commit ourselves to doing

whatever is necessary to destroy this enemy before its insidious hand reach into the heartland of america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the gentleman from california will control the time. the gentleman from california. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield three minutes to my friend and colleague a member of the committee on armed services, the distinguished gentleman from colorado, mr. lamb born. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. lamb born: i rise today in strong support of the mckeon antidepressant to authorize the training and equiping of appropriately vetted members of the syrian opposition. i believe that chairman mckeon has crafted language which strikes the appropriate balance between giving the president the authority he hasst requesting while also ensuring that congress maintains oversight of our efforts to combat isil. however, let me be clear.

we are only here today because of president obama's weak and failed leadership. my criticism of the president is not about party politics or about his style of leadership, but -- but is based simply on his failed foreign policy. syria is a case study in obama's failed policy he drew an arbitrary red line and spectacularly failed to enforce it. we also lost the opportunity to support moderate dissidents in syria when it would have done the most good. next door in iraq, president obama raced for the exit for political reasons instead of recognizing that the threat from islamist extremists could quickly return without some sort of counterweight he didn't end the war in iraq he, merely abandoned it. the bottom line is that isil was a regional threat that's metastasized into a threat to our allies in the region, including israel, and to us here at home.

unfortunately, the president's failed foreign policy is not isolated to isil. the president's reset with russia was worthless. obama's leading from behind intervention in libya has created another haven for terrorists there our allies in yurp are threatened by russia and our allies in air force base are threatened by china. iran doesn't seem to be slowing its efforts to destroy israel. none of these are easy problem bus president obama has failed to provide clear and strong american leadership in each case and in each case, america and the world are worse off as a result. let's provide training to moderates who will fight isil and hope the president's slowness of action hasn't made it too late. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back to the chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. mckeon: at this time, i

yield two minutes to my friend -- we'll reserve, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. today is a very important day. today the house is debating on a continuing resolution and also an amendment to that resolution which would authorize the -- under title 10 -- the expenditure of $500 million to train moderate syrian opposition . this is not an authorization for the use of military force.

it's just simply for the limited purpose which i just stated. ut i feel compelled to go into -- or go a little bit further as to why it's necessary that we be in favor of that amendment. to the c.r. s well as the c.r. itself. if we do nothing against the il threat, we choose to be isolationists and take a wait and see attitude, then the chances are great that the situation will get worse. when it gets worse, that means isil gets more powerful. they have been on a run lately. and they have gotten more powerful. now i know people on the other side of the aisle will say that it's the president's fault that

isil got this strong. but isil would not have gotten this strong had it not been for the instability that we created ourselves when we went into iraq. and went to war for an illegitimate purpose system of we disrupted the stability in that region and we're still recovering from it now system of what do we do now? i would much rather have a president that's thoughtful, deliberate, careful, and moderate in terms of the use of military force than to have a trigger-happy, shoot first ask questions later type of president. we've seen what that got us. so our president has taken a very reasonable, modest approach and we have not put massive amounts of armaments in syria

that could now be being used against us. he was smart enough not to do that but now we have the situation where due to a number of forces outside of our control, isil has gotten bigger, gotten more menacing, has gotten stronger and it is a threat, a distant threat to our homeland, but it is a threat. so what do you do when the wolf is crying out? well, actually, barking out, saying, i'm coming to get you? what do you do? can i get another minute? mr. garamendi: i yield another minute. one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an idecisional minute. -- an additional minute. mr. johnson: what do you do when the wol san francisco in front of the door? do you move back from the door

and kneel down and pray and hope everything is ok or do you take some action? now in this kind of situation, the wolf is not at the door yet but the wolf is coming. the wolf has told you that i'm coming. so there is a lot of logic into taking preemptive measures to make sure that the wolf does not come to the door. i would rather have the fight there than have it here. the limited fight that we're going to do is the use of our air power once we train up what's called moderate syrians -- syrian opposition. i don't know how that's going to turn out but i do know that we have no choice but to do something, and so we must build up the ground forces over there from our partner nations to enter the fight, fight on the ground. we support them in the air so i support this resolution and --

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. johnson: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague a member of the committee on armed services, the distinguished mr. eman from alabama, byrne. spripe the gentleman is recognized for -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. byrne: i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. i support the chairman's amendment because i believe we must do everything we can to defeat this vile enemy known as isil. time is of the essence here. with each passing day, isil continues to get stronger. the president has finally asked far very limited authorization, not of force, but for training

and supplying. based on the information i have received, i believe that arming and training syrian rebels is an important first step. just a few weeks ago, i joined chairman mckeon and a few other colleagues on a trip to the middle east. we met with numerous foreign leaders and defense officials. one thing became very clear. there's regional interest and support for defeating isil but they're waiting on our leadership. now i believe arming and training the syrian rebels to be a necessary step but i do not believe it alone will be sufficient. just this morning, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey, reported that more action will likely be needed. our enemy should not just be degraded or retained, our enemy must be defeated. in order to accomplish that objective, more acts will be needed including overt help from sunni muslims in the region and air attacks from the united states. it is also important to note

that the safeguards -- to note the safeguards chairman mckeon has written into this amendment. each fighter must be thoroughly vetted and regular progress reports must be provided to congress. i firmly believe a new authorization for the use of military force is needed to specifically address isil and new action in syria. the current aumf's from 2001 and 2002 are simply not applicable to this conflict. and i hope the president will recognize the article 1, section 8 powers of this congress which are exclusive and ask us for a new aumf. that's why this resolution explicitly states it does not give president obama authority to send new u.s. forces into combat in syria. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i thank the chairman and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from california.

>> i yield to the gentleman from virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank my dear friend from california. i rise today in support this amendment. mr. connolly: the president just laid out a bold and decisive strategy to lead a multilateral operation designed to degrade and ultimately defeat eye sill. this is a threat to the united states -- the united states sooner or later must address. i prefer sooner. eye sill's acts of jeb side -- eye sill's acts of genocide -- yesle -- -- isil is reversing gains made by moderate forces in syria. i believe congress has a constructive and collaborative role to play here in the effort o eliminate the isil threat. i appreciate that this takes a tep in that direction. first, the amendment provides

for careful congressional oversight, the department of defense must report to congress on vetting process for trainees 15 days prior to providing any such assistance. the president must report to congress on how this operation fits within our overall regional strategy. and the department of defense must submit a report every 90 days updating congress on the status of this operation. these are prudent measures and consistent with the constitutional role of congressional oversight. second, this amendment does not provide a blank check for military operations. no additional funds are provided by this measure and the department of defense must submit any reprogramming requests to this congress. third, this is not an open-ended commitment. the limited activities authorized by this amendment will remain in effect until the earlier of the date of the expiration of the c.r. or the enactment of the 2015 national defense authorization act.

almost one year ago in response to the president's consultation with congress on the deepening crisis in syria, i introduced a resolution authorizing the president to carry out air strikes against the assad regime. in that case, congress chose to demur. today i hope we act. not only on this resolution, but ultimately on a new authorization for the use of military force, allowing the president to carry out air strikes against isil. the 2001 aumf has gone stale and it is time for a new focused aumf targeting isil. i believe the president would find bipartisan support here in congress for air strikes in iraq and syria. this tactic thus far has effectively bolstered our partners on the ground, protected american assets and facilitated humanitarian missions. but instead of taking up the charge and debating issues of war and peace, we're about to break for a recess. while i support the measure before us today, i hope

congress will do more to assert its constitutional role and responsibility and act as a stakeholder in the fight against this terrorist threat. with that i yield back and i thank again my friend california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield three noins my friend and colleague, a member of the committee on armed services, a gished -- distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. gibson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. gibson: thanks, mr. speaker. and i thank the chairman as well for his strong leadership of our committee. i rise in opposition to the amendment. certainly the islamic state is an evil organization and a threat to our country. there's no question on that. nd i saw that firsthand. at aeda in iraq executing close range iraqis who were working with us just to provide for a better day for their people. this evil organization has to

be defeated. the question is how? first of all, we always reserve the right to act in self-defense. if we learn of specific intelligence that the enemy's preparing, planning an attack on us, we always reserve that right. we will take action to protect our people. but as the president reported when he spoke to the american people last week, the intelligence community, we do not have that specific intelligence at this moment, that they're going to be able to strike our country. so then the question occurs again, what is the smartest way to deal with this threat? i maintain based on my experience escalating in syria right now is not the best approach. we should instead implement a three-point plan. number one, empowering the iraqi armed forces and the kurdish forceses to defeat the islamic state. we have seen in recent days, with our help, they have begun to reverse some of the advances of the islamic state and they have a capacity, as was mentioned earlier, the big issue that they have is they weren't willing to fight and

die for that prime minister. they didn't have the will to stand up because they didn't believe. now we've had a new election, they're rallying around, tending to their constitution, a new government, and they do need our support and we should be standing there with them. why is it so important we do it that way? our enemy, the islamic state, is trying to frame this struggle as one, in their words, between the believers and the nonbelievers. there's certainly an element here. but it goes much broader than that. in the main, what's really at stake is what's happening to the mainstream muslims in iraq, in syria. and why this is so important is, when we help the iraqi armies and the kurdish force to defeat militarily the islamic state, that also lessens the ability of the islamic state to recruit and to fund raise internationally. and long-term, that's what's key to success here. so number one, empower the iraqi armed forces and the kurdish forces.

number two, we have not set the conditions for actions in syria. there is no credible partner there. there is no political partner there. and that's really the issue. what we should be doing is working to get -- to compel, working with our friends and our neighbors in the region, other nations across the world, to compel the government of syria to get to some brokered agreement with the rebel forces. including what we would call the free syrian army. from that foundation we will be in a stronger place to complete the final destruction of the slick state. here's the issue. the big idea that the administration is advancing right now, the big idea is that we need a ground element to support air strikes. given my military experience, i understand that. and i actually agree with that point. but here's the point. what they're advancing today, what we have learned, is that at the earliest we would see a ground force in six to eight months, yet the administration, mr. speaker, i ask for one more minute. ok. evidently i'm not going to get any more time.

i would ask my friend, mr. garamendi, for a minute. mr. garamendi: mr. chairman, a bit from the unusual, but my colleague from new york requests a minute and i yield a minute to him. mr. gibson: i thank my friend. the issue is, here the administration says they need a ground partner to conduct these air attacks but we're not even going to have a ground partner for six to eight months and they're talking about launching air strikes within a month. this is a problem. the other problem is these forces on the ground have not shown themselves to be military-competent nor politically trustworthy. we should work politically in syria. that's the second point. and the third point is we ought to secure our borders. commonsense point. but look, they have expressed a desire to attack our country. and we need to protect ourselves from that. so empower the iraqi armed forces and the kurds, work politically to get a partner in syria, secure our borders and reject this amendment. with all due respect. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california.

mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. my apologies for calling you mr. chairman a moment ago. i'd like to now yield three minutes to my colleague from california, mr. mcnerney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcnerney: thank you, mr. speaker. taking military action is the gravest responsibility of our government and i take my role in helping to decide our nation's policies very seriously. i support the current plan to engage in ult -- and ultimately destroy eyesle, but it -- isil, but it won't be successful unless we can enlist the alliance of nations within the region that are fully and demonstrably committed to two true democratic inclusions and are willing to fight for their own freedom. mr. speaker, i don't see how we can align ourselves with nations that turn a blind eye to having their citizens send money to the very terrorists

who are about to engage. and this effort will take time and should include potential training, allied military units and nonbattlefield locations and providing appropriate arms to competent and reliable allied military units. meanwhile, the president must demonstrate america's commitment to the region by using very limited american air power, in conjunction with local military units to help prevent additional isil territorial gains. i do not support the involvement of american ground troops beyond their training mission or the excessive use of american air power. both of these are not needed and would likely be counterproductive in the end. while i support this amendment and i thank the chairman for proposing this amendment, i want to urge my colleagues to consider the long-term affects of authorizing force to our soldiers, to the innocent

civilians and to the sustained stability in the middle east. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. mckeon. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. diaz-balart. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to speak in favor of the mckeon amendment. to train and equip vetted syrian opposition groups. isil is a terrorist group, organization, that threatens our allies, savagely murders americans and others, it threatens our national security interests and it must be destroyed. it must be destroyed, including in syria. now, however, mr. speaker, i have serious reservations about the president's plan. it's no lie that there's a trust gap with this president. unfortunately the president has consistently ignored what was clear to just about everyone else, and the president must start listening to the advice and the guide avens our senior

military commanders. against the advice of his generals, the president prematurely withdrew from iraq so he could claim a victory. unfortunately the enemy continued to fight. there is a trust gap. more recently, according to press reports, the president has already dismissed some of the preferred recommendations of his generals in favor of a more limited role to our armed forces. mr. speaker, there is a trust gap. and we know that air strikes and training and equipping and vetting the syrian opposition groups are necessary, but as we have heard, it's not sufficient. will the president do what is sufficient? what is necessary? there is a trust gap. what president are we supposed to believe and trust? the one who in august said that those syrian opposition forces were frankly not a real thing? or the one who now says that they're the ones who are going to defeat isis? there is a trust gap. unfortunately the president has refused to lead until the polls and the opinion polls kind of

pushed him to. so that's why i'm so grateful, mr. chairman, for the language that you have to have robust oversight and increased transparency. and that the administration must keep congress up to speed on planning and logistics. mr. chairman, i hope that we can keep repeating -- stop repeating the mistakes of the past. it's time for the president to treat this threat like what it is, a national security threat to the united states. and that he listens to his generals. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. garamendi. mr. garamendi: i choose to reserve, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. mckeon. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the committee on transportation and infrastructure and a member of the committee on armed services, the distinguished gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: i thank the chairman and i rise today in

support of the mckeon amendment to train and equip vetted syrian opposition groups and to confront the threat posed to our nation by isil. isil, are thugs, murder -- isil are thugs, murderers and monsters. they must be stopped. their trail of destruction, slaughter of innocent men, women and children, must stop. isil has laid out its -- their goals and their strategy and that is to re-establish a caliphate and death to anyone who stands in their way or to use their motto, convert or die. they must be destroyed. now is the time for the united states to make clear our goals and our strategy. that we will not stand by idly, we will not watch and wait for the slaughtering of more innocent civilians. i am pleased that the president has finally committed -- is committed to some action. it should have happened months ago if not a year ago. the president has been far -- has been timid for far too long. it's time to act. and by coming together as a unified body to take this important step, we will tell

the world that america stands together in opposition to global terrorism and the monsters of isil. this amendment to train and equip vetted syrian opposition groups send as clear signal to our european allies, that we are committed to eradicating isil and that we will hope they will join us in this effort. it sends a message to moderate arabs and muslims in the region and around the world that we stand with them against terrorism. this amendment strengthens the commander in chief's request for ensuring that congress has oversight and greater transparency, which is our constitutional duty. we must do all we can on every front to ensure these killers do not gain one more inch of ground. in their pursuits of a terrorist state with this amendment we send a firm message that america's not going to allow this cancer to spread. congress must act now and for that reason i strongly support this amendment and urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes, to send a clear, strong message, an overwhelming message, a bipartisan congress stands with the president to defeat isil and all evil

everywhere. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: i yield four minutes to my friend, mr. nolan, of minnesota. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. nolan: we have to applaud the president and vice president for using all means disposable to track down the killers of the journalists. but it can be and should be done in the same way we tracked down osama bin laden, yoozing -- using our intelligence, using our selective capabilities, and making sure that these murderers and these kill verse no safe refuge. having said that, launching air strikes on another country, by any standard, by any definition

is an act of war. whether you think it's a good idea or not, it requires this congress to step up and assume its responsibility. and to make that declaration. have we not had enough of imperial presidencies? doing whatever they like, anywhere in the world? when are we going to step up and assume our responsibility. now with regard to this amendment, make no mistake about it, we have been on the side of every side in this conflict. going back to al qaeda. that was the mujahedin, we armed them because they were the enemy of our enemy. then we supported saddam hussein. no, wait a minute, wait a minute, let's overthrow him. then we put the shias in power. but they're not being nice to

the sunnis so we give arms and money to the sunnis. and we refer to this free syrian army as moderates? we just -- read the paper, i can't talk about what we saw and heard in our briefings, but that's the muslim brotherhood. and did you hear the latest news, just came out over the wire, bet you haven't heard it. the founder of the free syrian army, the one we're going to give $5 billion to, al-assad he, just said, we're not going to use that money to fight isis. no, we're fight assad. wait a minute, we were going to attack assad last year. now we want to fight people that are going to keep assad in pow her what are bewe doing? -- in power? what are we doing? you know the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting different results.

in this case, make no mistake about it, we have given arms to every element in this conflict with the notion that somehow the enemy of our enemy is our friend and at the end of the day, we have no friends in this conflict. and either directly or inadvertently, they end up using the arms and the weapons that we have supplied against, yes, you guessed who, us. it's time to wake up. it's time to put an end to it. it's time for this congress to step up. and assume its responsibility. the constitution could not be more clear on who declares war. it's the congress of the united states. not the president of the united states. my fellow colleagues, please, i beg with you, i plead with you, step up. assume our obligations here. if there's a declaration to be made, let's make it, and most

importantly right now, let us reject this amendment and stop pouring money into this conflict that goes back thousands of years and can only be resolved by people in that region and part of that conflict. thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, mr. speaker, thank you colleagues. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: the president's request and the amendment we are debating, we got a little bit far afield there, but there is no request for money. the president says he doesn't need any additional moneys to carry this out. all he needs is the authority to go in to saudi arabia and take their offer of training the syrians to be able to go home and defend their homeland. at this time, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, a member of the committee on armed services, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jens. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman -- mr. jones. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. jones: i want to thank the sharme for his leadership on -- the chairman for his leadership on this amendment, even though i can't support it. all i can say is, here we go again, sending troops and money for what can become a war without end. where is the greater middle east commitment to combat this threat? why are they not providing the greater resource commitment to defend their own countries? is it not ridiculous that the united states borrows money to buy friendship, buys arms and train those who could today be our friends and tomorrow be our enemies? a former commandant of the marine corps recently asked me this question and i now ask the house of representatives, are we simply arming and training a -- another taliban? that is from a former commandant

of the marine corps. we all agree this is a difficult and challenging issue. but a strategy with no end state is a failed strategy. and i am concerned that the commitment we make today will become an ongoing commitment for which we truly do not grasp its consequences until it's too late. which we truly do not grasp its consequences until it's too late . that is what my concern is and the concern of the american people. i think about the $1. trillion we spent in -- the $1.7 trillion we spent in afghanistan and iraq and i think about the 4,000 americans who gave their life, 30,000 wounded, the thou -- thousands of iraqis killed. here we go again. i don't care if the president is

a democrat or republican, this is a failed policy. i listened to mr. rangel very carefully. s that quote from pat buchanan. is it not an act of senility to borrow from the world to defend the world? it is absolutely senility. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. garamendi: i yield five minutes to my friend from california, mr. sherman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sherman: we ought to focus on what is the appropriate foreign policy and what is the appropriate role of congress. i rise in support of this amendment. in fact, the amendment is quite similar to the free syria act which was introduced by several of us under the leadership of eliot engel a year and a half ago. that approach of vetting appropriate syrian forces and

providing training is -- was a good but difficult policy then. it's a good and even more difficult policy now. we have to vet those we train and it should be only certain elements of the free syria army that we should only cooperate with those who are not only going to stand up for the sunni majority but protect the christian and other minorities. and we have to arm only those who are strong enough and careful enough not to lose the weapons we give them to more extremist forces. this arming of the syrian rebels is part of an overall plan that will include american military action. there's general agreement on no boots on the ground, or at least no boots on the frontlines. but let us speak honestly to the american people. the american people are asking

for a guaranteed plan. guaranteed successful plan. that would provide immediate and total destruction of isis with very few or no american casualties. such a plan cannot be created. instead, the policy that this amendment is part of will contain and weaken and punish isis and keep limited american casualties, hopefully avoid them altogether. we should remember that the enemies of isis are nearly as enemy and probably more dangerous than isis itself. those enemies include assad who has killed well over 100,000 of his own people and gassed many of them until he faced world pressure. iran and hezbollah, who have killed many hundreds if not thousands of americans. d the iraqi shiite militias, including mr. malkey who created the sitch -- mr. maliki who

created the situation on the ground in iraq which led to the creation of isis. what is the role of congress? we look at articles one and article two of the constitution with different roles for the president and congress in military policy. thomas jefferson determined it was necessary to get the approval for congress -- from congress before he deployed marines to the shores of tripoli. our first nondeclared war, our first intervention in the middle east. that wisdom is reflected in the war power act adopted in 1973. hat act, i think, is a fair, constitutional, and reasonable clarification of the interaction of articles 1 and 2. the war powers of the congress and the command for the chief power of the president. now the president, under some questioning, and his administration, has finally come up with their theory as to why

congress has already authorized the military action he anticipates, and that is this congress, in 2001, authorized every effort to go after al qaeda. the forces of isis are a group that joined al qaeda after 2001 nd left al qaeda a year ago or so, but does this mean you can't leave al qaeda or are you always part of al qaeda? do we have several al qaedas? how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. the president's authority to engage in this war is questionable. the fact that he is stretching the 2001 war powers act resolution is not commendable. but this congress has also failed to play its role. we wrote a resolution in 2001. instead of revising it, we leave it there and then some of us are

upset that the president stretches it or applies it to circumstances not then anticipated. we should be revising and repealing the war powers resolutions of 2001 and 2002. and we as a congress should indicate what we think is the appropriate foreign and military policy. but instead, we focus on only the narrowest part of the president's policy. in doing so, we join with several administrations in being part of the multidecade decline in the role of congress. i ask for one more minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. sherman: by our failure to repeal and replace the war -- war cts that new power act resolution which no

longer fit current circumstances. we are complicit with many administrations in the multidecade decline in the role of this congress in shaping american foreign policy. i look forward restoring the balance provided by oy -- by our founders to follow the policies followed in the jefferson administration. in following the war powers act. and in crafting a resolution apublic to believe today's circumstances rather than abdicating our responsibility and sitting back as the president stretches words that were never intended to apply to the situation we face in iraq today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. chairman mckeon. mr. mckeon: i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the distinguished gentleman from utah, mr. stewart. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. stewart: i had the privilege

of serving as a pilot in the air force, flying helicopters and the b-1, an aircraft that's dropped a disproportionate amount ofed or nants on afghanistan and iraq. i have listened to this debate. i have tried to weigh all sides while we look for a solution to a very difficult problem in an impossibly difficult part of the world. and even now, it is with reluctance i'm willing to stand and take this stand in support of this amendment but i have simply reached the conclusion that we have no other choice. . in meeting with foreign ministers and military leaders, what we heard was nearly universal. where is the united states? can we count on you to stand by your allies and your friends? this fight, this battle against isis that our president so reluctantly calls a war, is a generational battle.

i believe it is the defining battle of our lifetime. we cannot afford to waffle. we've been doing that for far too long now. yes, this is a terrible situation, there are no good options. all we have are messy and conflicted options. each of which has their own dangers. but this much is true. there is one very worst option and that is to do nothing. we may not trust some of the syrian rebels. we trust isis even more. we may not like some of the leaders we have to align with. some of them may prove to be unreliable. but nothing and no one represents more of a threat to those who are willing to support this amendment -- threat. to those who are willing to support this amendment, i ask you, how can you justify doing nothing? that is the only option we've been given. do nothing or do this. we owe it to our friends and our allies in the region to step up and to lead.

after months or years of inaction, the president is finally doing that. mr. mckeon: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. stewart turet thank you, mr. chairman -- mr. stewart: thank you, mr. chairman. i'll take 30 seconds. we owe it to our friends and allies in the region to step up and lead, as i was saying. after months of inaction, the president is finally do that -- doing that. i wish we were doing more. i wish that we were doing more. but this is the only option that we've been given. and we must at least do this. with that, mr. chairman, or, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. garamendi: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: mr. garamendi reserves. chairman mckeon. mr. mckeon: i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. ross. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. ross: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, chairman mckeon, for your leadership on this. part of september 11, 2001, terrorist groups had a much

different strang. they plain -- they re-- strategy. they remained virtually invisible. today the terrorist threat to america and the free world is on the rise. the enemy is expanding and that enemy is isil. this is an enemy that commits human atrocities and distributes video footage showing brutal human torture. it is now very clear what threats america and all the international community face. if isil is not destroyed. two americans and one british citizen have tragically fallen victim to isil's radical terrorist actions. these barbarians are the face of pure evil and they must be crushed. we have heard secretary of state john kerry call american military actions against isil, quote, significant counterterrorist operations. this is a pitfully weak way to motivate the men and women of our armed forces, mr. speaker. this is war and the united states and the free world must be victorious. the house's action today calls to mind the discussion i had with the constituent mother in my district of bartow, florida.

ailing pain -- eileen payne is the mother of the first marine who were killed in combat in afghanistan. when we met last week, she exuded a passion for ensuring that congress has thoughtful debate on providing the president the authority required by our constitution to take the fight to isil. she understands perhaps more than most americans the significance of putting lives of american soldiers at risk. her son's death came with a very high price. the price of freedom. the price of national security. and the price of vic ticket -- victory. she nor i want the loss of her son to be in vain. the amendment we are deliberating today is a step in the right direction. while i support this amendment, i believe the words of this gold star mother must be heard and considered. if we do not develop and implement a strategy, a winning strategy, to eradicate isil, we will be taking for granted the very freedoms that we have been afforded and defended by our brave troops now and throughout

the history of our country. corporal payne would want us to defend american freedom and defeat terrorism worldwide. he gave his life for that cause. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mckeon: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ross: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, mr. speaker. while this amendment does not represent my ideal military strategy against isil, i believe the congress is fulfilling its constitutional duty today and i stand in support of its efforts. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. garamendi. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to my colleague, mr. langevin from rhode island. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for three minutes. mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise in support of the amendment offered by chairman mckeon and i want to be very clear about what's at stake here today.

the terrorist group isil poses a direct threat to our allies and friends in the middle east and of equal importance, left unchecked, the nye less tick vision could pose a direct threat to the united states, particularly given the number of individuals fighting with isil who have american and western passports. i am grateful concerned that those individuals could return home and carry out acts of violence against the homeland. we have a clear imperative to act. these terrorists have brutally murdered two unarmed american journalists and an aide worker from the united kingdom. they've slaughtered thousands of innocent muslim, killed children and committed unspeakable atrocities against women and rnls minorities. isil and its agencies operate without regard to international borders in any strategy to degrade and depe feet these terrorists must acknowledge this reality. in iraq, the united states and its allies are operating in support and at the request of the sovereign government of iraq, as well as kurdish forces. we have friendly boots on the

ground and u.s. advisors in place. but in syria we lack that clear partnership. i believe the president has rightly committed to an approach that does not involve u.s. combat troops fighting on foreign soil. but the opposition needs training and equipment that the u.s. and its allies are able to provide. our commitment however needs to be matched by that of other countries in the region, including sunni countries with whom the united states has a rich history of partnership. after all, isil is not just a problem for the united states, it is also a problem for the many western countries with citizens fighting overseas, it's a problem for our nato allies, for whom syria is a neighbor, and it's a problem for the safety and security and the stability of the entire region. but we can't simply kill terrorists and expect to see democracy flourish. we must carefully consider the full range of possible outcomes in syria and what risks may incur in a nation and region already ridden by years of

civil war, the use of weapons of mass destruction and a terrible humanitarian crisis. this is an exceedingly complex task but one that we must address. if we do not act, we face a dark and uncertain future -- future. congress and the administration must do their parts. today's amendments are only a down payment on what will surely be years of difficult oversight, debate and discussion. it is far from a blank check. it will require a great deal of hard work and there are many legitimate questions that remain to be unanswered. but we need to act and i believe that this amendment represents a prudent first step. i urge my colleagues to support the mckeon amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. mckeon: i yield three minutes to my friend and colleague, member of the committee on armed services, the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, chairman, i appreciate that. first of all, i want to thank the leadership for this extended debate.

this is an important conversation we should be having and to have an unprecedented almost six hours of debate just reflects how grave we do in fact consider. this i also want to thank the leadership for allowing two different votes. a vote on this amendment and a vote on the c.r. and not trying somehow to combine those two. because i think that would have also lessened the gravity of what's going on. mr. speaker, i support this amendment. i do so with great reservations. and in fact, in the speech of the intelligence committee, i would give this low confidence that this mission will in fact be successful. mr. speaker, there are no boy scouts in syria. there's not anybody over there fighting who you would like to live next door to you in your enabled. but with that said, whether he go through under this president's stated plans a vet prague sess that will try to find those -- vetting process that will try to find those people that are sack lar, that are not less -- secular, that are not islamic jihadists, in order to create this force that they're talking about. mr. speaker, this will not be

in all likelihood the last time we'll come to this chamber and discuss the fight against radical islam or this fight in syria. those discussions may very well be, as general dempsey said today, involved in the deployment of u.s. military asset others than just fighting this thing from the air. i want to be able at that point in time to say to the american people, we've explored every other opportunity, every other way of getting at this, of creating that ground force in syria, short of sending american troops into harm's way again. i think it's what we deserve. we clearly want to train the syrians to be able to defend their own country. that's the most successful model. we've had a long experience with doing that, a checkered past in some instances. but nevertheless the best alternative as we see today is to make that happen. i would also point out to my colleagues that by december 11, when this authorization expires, we will know a whole lot more than we do today. today we're looking at this whole issue from about 10,000 feet, so to speak, by december

11, after this plan is put in place, we will know what the president specifically has in place, we'll know how the president, where and how these training camps will be set up. we will have the army, the military's evaluation of how that process will work. we'll know a whole lot more then than we do today with, that mr. speaker, i would urge my colleagues to get to us this paint, -- point. but doing that you'll have to support this amendment. with that, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support the mckeon amendment, get us and this overall group a better sense of understanding of what might or night be accomplishble think about december date, whether it's through a new c.r. or omnibus or ndaa so at that point in time we will make a much more informed decision than we will today with that, mr. speaker, i again urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. mr. garamendi. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. chairman mckeon. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, at

this time i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the distinguished gentleman from south carolina, mr. sanford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. sanford: mr. speaker, i think i was told i had three minutes. i may be mistaken in that. mr. mckeon: i yield the gentleman three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. sanford: with that in mind, i would say first off, indeed, mr. chairman, i thank you for your work and the leadership's work in indeed providing this time for this debate. as was just stated by my colleague from texas, i don't think that there's a more sacred vote out there for members of congress than on issues of war. i mean, in its balance hangs life and death. in its balance hangs all kinds of financial and life considerations. in its balance hangs how allies are going to view our actions going forward. this is an incredibly important subject and deed i thank you, mr. chairman, for your work and the committee's work on this matter.

that having been said, i rise in opposition, respectful opposition, not to your work, but to the actions of the president. because i think his approach has been fundamentally flawed. i say that first off because i ink that step one has to be, on the issue of war, congressional approval. and i think it is so important, base on the what the constitution said -- based on what the constitution said, for the president to indeed come to the congress to ask for that declaration of war and he's not done so. i would say then, ok, on what basis does he move forward? and if you look at what he and others have said, they hang a large part of their hat on the authorization of 2001. and i think what's interesting here is what the president himself said just two years ago. he said, the aumf is now nearly 12 years old. unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to

fight or continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflict between nation states. i think that the president was right. i agree with the president. and yet members of the administration have been coming to capitol hill and they have been basically making the case that with that aumf they have the authorization to go in essence another 25 years. i think that that again is mistaken. these are not blank checks. each war and each war effort needs to be debated in isolated form based on that effort. i would thirdly say that i think that this effort is fundamentally flawed because of what was talked about with regard to war. i don't think at the end of the day we're going to affect the military center of gravity of our opponent. because if you look at the center of gravity, i would argue it is their faith, it is their will power, it's their motivation and as we saw with the nazis and the bombings on

london, bombing alone will not change will. in some cases it strengthens resoven. and so what you're left with is in the void that's created with bombings is boots on the ground. but in this case we're leaving that precious job of boots on the ground to what are described as moderate rebels, whatever that is, and an example that we have to look back on, what just happened. if you look at the activities of this spring, 1,000 isis soldiers routhed 30,000 trained soldiers -- routed 30,000 strained -- trained soldiers ar we spent $35 billion in a that process. i think there's a whole loft of mistakes and errors in this plan and would rise in opposition to it. with that i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized. .